Tons of people in here have argued universal background checks are not necessary.

That you can find a single private sale that went to a prohibited person doesn't really tell us anything useful. It's not like anyone suggested that this kind of thing never happens, of course it does. It does not however appear to be a substantial source of guns used in crime, and a few anecdotes doesn't change that.

Evidently a cop in Nevada sold a gun (private sale) to a prohibited person. She only asked him if he had committed any crimes. He hadn't and said so. He was, however, institutionalized for being a danger to himself/others. Oops. UBCs aren't necessary, the cop just needed more training in the sales of weapons!

I don't know about your pants, but your strawmen are definitely catching fire.

Evidently a cop in Nevada sold a gun (private sale) to a prohibited person. She only asked him if he had committed any crimes. He hadn't and said so. He was, however, institutionalized for being a danger to himself/others. Oops. UBCs aren't necessary, the cop just needed more training in the sales of weapons!

I don't know about your pants, but your strawmen are definitely catching fire.

Please propose how to prevent this from happening without background checks for private sales.

Tons of people in here have argued universal background checks are not necessary.

That you can find a single private sale that went to a prohibited person doesn't really tell us anything useful. It's not like anyone suggested that this kind of thing never happens, of course it does. It does not however appear to be a substantial source of guns used in crime, and a few anecdotes doesn't change that.

Are my pants on fire too? If you want to ignore that increased "education" and training aren't called for as solutions to all sorts of firearms problems go for it.

It's not clear that "training" has ever been suggested here as a solution to the particular problem which you were describing: Unverified private sales going to prohibited persons.

It is clear that many here are adamant that UCBs are not necessary for private sales. Without them, how do you propose preventing what happened from happening again? A situation where a good-natured seller attempts to vet the buyer but doesn't ask all the right questions? And I'm not only concerned about guns used in crime, but guns (mis)used in accidental deaths and in suicides.

Please propose how to prevent this from happening without background checks for private sales.

I'm in favor of UBC, depending on implementation, but I'll play devil's advocate here. You can give citizens access to the NICS without mandating all sales go through a dealer.

UBC isn't going to stop the "just don't give a damn" sales, as evidenced by the fact that we've had UBC here in California for a long, long time and checkless private sales still happen frequently, even by sellers not intentionally participating in the black market. The chance of being caught and punished is just so low that it doesn't matter to some people.

Personally, I would prefer a system that merges NICS, CCW, and FOID cards.

So if I buy a one off firearm, the process would be as it is now: Enter store, buy gun. Or, with UBC, find gun on classifieds in newspaper, meet person, seller calls a toll free number to verify by some form of .gov ID that the person isn't a PP, and then sell the gun.

If that process is too tedious, sign up for a CCW permit or FOID card (either would perform the requisite checks) and then those would be considered valid in lieu of a check.

No firearms data is stored. If you are sharing guns a lot, or have family type situations, getting both parties in question to have a CCW/FOID would be logical.

I am not sure what you want from me. I've been trying to make it easier to ignore me since I am a casual participant. I appreciate your patience with my slow responses though. I just don't understand what you want me to do.

He probably wants you to try to balance your point of view a bit.

Quote:

Massachusetts has New Hampshire and Maine contributing 1/3 of the guns involved in gun related crimes in 2010. If their laws were federal would we see a 1/3 reduction? I don't know. The Massachusetts laws appear to be pretty strict. It appears to regulate ownership as well as exchanges of guns.

I guess the rationalization is that regulating transfer of guns between owners is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Requiring mental and criminal background checks before transfers take place is a way to track guns that are used in crimes perhaps making those crimes easier to solve. Pushing criminals away from guns to aid in the commission of the crimes increases the risk to the criminal and may act as a deterrent to those crimes. Isn't that what we want? To increase the risk of engaging in crime while minimizing the intrusion on law abiding citizens?[/spoiler]

The bolded section is ostensibly what both sides want. I would think that a working UBC (Universal Background Check) should be recognized by both sides as something that if in place would remove the need for all of the firearms accessory restrictions we see in the form of "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazine" bans. Would you agree on this point?

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

I clearly asked how you would prevent it without background checks. I guess I get to call you a liar now. Go hold your disingenuous self.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

I clearly asked how you would prevent it without background checks. I guess I get to call you a liar now. Go hold your disingenuous self.

Yeah, it didn't process for me that you've been ignoring the pro-ubc position that I've held, so I reiterated it. That doesn't discount your actions that you still haven't acknowledged.

Without them, how do you propose preventing what happened from happening again? A situation where a good-natured seller attempts to vet the buyer but doesn't ask all the right questions?

I don't. The transferee commits a crime in this situation, perhaps unknowingly. I don't like idea of 'prohibited persons' but I'm even less interested in a new law whose sole purpose is to prevent someone from breaking another law that's already a malum prohibitum invented from whole cloth in 1968.

It is clear that many here are adamant that UCBs are not necessary for private sales. Without them, how do you propose preventing what happened from happening again? A situation where a good-natured seller attempts to vet the buyer but doesn't ask all the right questions?

I'm not convinced that it's such a substantial problem that it needs solving. There's no evidence whatsoever that otherwise well-intentioned gun owners unwittingly selling to prohibited persons via private sales is a meaningful source of crime guns.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

I clearly asked how you would prevent it without background checks. I guess I get to call you a liar now. Go hold your disingenuous self.

You specifically asked how you would prevent it without universal background checks. MGT proposed a solution that didn't have background checks at every point of sale.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

I clearly asked how you would prevent it without background checks. I guess I get to call you a liar now. Go hold your disingenuous self.

You specifically asked how you would prevent it without universal background checks. MGT proposed a solution that didn't have background checks at every point of sale.

Just requires the buyer to go through a background check sometime before attempting to buy. I'm not seeing much difference except his system lets someone become "pre-approved" and then become a prohibited person and still buy.

If I remove getting a background check from your proposal it doesn't really do anything. I asked how you do it without background checks and you reply by saying "i said 37 pages ago he should get a background check". Your answer is not useful.

...

Oh, damn. I didn't realize you had set up yet another strawman. Obviously from my posts I just linked a non-UBC position isn't one that I hold.

I do hold that you should stop insinuating false positions and lying about the statements of the posters here, however.

I clearly asked how you would prevent it without background checks. I guess I get to call you a liar now. Go hold your disingenuous self.

You specifically asked how you would prevent it without universal background checks. MGT proposed a solution that didn't have background checks at every point of sale.

Just requires the buyer to go through a background check sometime before attempting to buy. I'm not seeing much difference except his system lets someone become "pre-approved" and then become a prohibited person and still buy.

You just repeated what I described about MGT's solution, rather than own up to your own mistake. Bringing up the small possibility that someone isn't denied following a disqualifying event isn't any more useful than bringing up cases where a point of sale check system fails because the system doesn't accurately reflect the immediate qualification status of a purchaser.

Never mind the fact that criminals by definition don't do background checks. So, any discussion of background checks means yet another inconvenience for the peaceable firearm owner for absolutely no demonstrated benefit, other than to make some politician look like he is Doing Something About Crime™.

Never mind the fact that criminals by definition don't do background checks. So, any discussion of background checks means yet another inconvenience for the peaceable firearm owner for absolutely no demonstrated benefit, other than to make some politician look like he is Doing Something About Crime™.

In the example that sparked this neither buyer nor seller were criminals.

Never mind the fact that criminals by definition don't do background checks. So, any discussion of background checks means yet another inconvenience for the peaceable firearm owner for absolutely no demonstrated benefit, other than to make some politician look like he is Doing Something About Crime™.

I'm generally AGAINST firearm control, but let's be fair, assuming that firearms are easier (and/or cheaper) to acquire from "legal" sources. If you removed the impediment to allow criminals to buy there, then such source COULD become a 'major' supplier of criminal firearms. That being said...

Well, it isn't now, the way things are set up presently, and yes, if the NICS check is removed the gun store route might be a bigger source of firearms criminals have, but I haven't seem anyone propose that here. All I see is breathless discussion of the media manufactured "gun show loophole", and the even greater restrictions that supposedly will fix it. Of course, it just so happens they will only affect the peaceable, instead of the criminal, but to those proposing them, this is a feature instead of a bug.

You're lying. People have in this thread discussed the real lack of private party UBC and the general oversight of transfers between said private parties, of which "gun shows" are just example. People disagree about the scope, necessity, potential effectiveness of such oversight. However your stupid commenter either reflect ignorance or dishonesty on the matter. Either option is typical and likely.

Banning private party transfers isn't going to accomplish squat when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

It might be more believable that gun-control advocates only want effective laws when those same gun-control advocates start to be in favor of getting rid of laws that clearly aren't effective.

That would not fit in their narrative, and is antithetical to their world view, so the thought doesn't even cross their minds. And because the type tend to live in a self selected ideological bubble, they don't have any friends or acquaintances to challenge their world view, they continue on through life, blissfully content that their Moral Certainty gives them license to trod all over the rights of Those Other People.This is why so many turn away from gun control when you take them out shooting, and they experience the realities that are firearms up close and personal like, and destroys the assumptions their opinions are based upon.The other reason the convert is that they are literately mugged on the street, and there isn't a gun-by-proxy (AKA police officer) around to save them in their time in need.

This is why so many turn away from gun control when you take them out shooting, and they experience the realities that are firearms up close and personal like, and destroys the assumptions their opinions are based upon.

It's interesting to see this in action with my friend's wife. Growing up she never had any contact with guns beyond popular media, while my friend has both a father and grandfather who were Marines - which means he grew up doing recreational shooting on a regular basis.

When they got married, his wife was completely, entirely and utterly anti-gun. Nope, no one should ever have one. You definitely can't have one. Especially not in the house. The trap shooting shotgun he owned had to stay at his dad's house some 90 miles away. She was so afraid of them that she'd get really nervous anytime she knew a gun was around even if it was unloaded, locked up and out of sight. We're talking outright fear to the point of shaking at times. This lasted for 8 years.

Within the last year or so, she finally relented a bit, worked up the nerve and told my friend that since it meant so much to him and was something he really enjoyed doing, he could keep the shotgun at home (in a safe, in a closet, in the corner, in the dark). She wasn't thrilled about it, but she did it for him. Early on she yelled at him because he 'played with it' every time he picked it up. He explained the concept of a safety check to her, and why he did one every time he picked it up if it had been out of his sight/control since the last time he put it down. That made her feel more at ease, and over time the sight of it didn't upset her anymore.

After a few more months of it being in the house she discovered that no, it had not in fact gotten up of its own accord in the middle of the night and killed everyone within a 3 block radius at any point, much to her surprise - because that's what guns did, right? She OK'd the purchase of a pistol. A short while after that, another.

A few months back she even went with us (voluntarily!) to the range and sat in the observation area with a cup of coffee and watched us shoot. We kept it short (~45 min), but that was a huge step for her, and she was fine the whole time.

She doesn't fear guns anymore, and has come to realize her original fears and opinions were entirely irrational and unfounded. She still has no specific love of them, and as of yet has expressed zero desire to ever fire one - but the fear is gone, and my friend can once again enjoy one of his hobbies.

We're hopeful that perhaps someday in the future she may express an interest in taking part and actually firing one, and my friend and I have discussed which firearms might be good candidates for a first time. She may never ask, and we'll never push her, but if at some point she'd like to take that step, we hope to be prepared.

It might be more believable that gun-control advocates only want effective laws when those same gun-control advocates start to be in favor of getting rid of laws that clearly aren't effective.

Observation: while all of the participants in this thread don't and might not ever agree what constitutes 'effective gun control', there are some currently-existing gun control laws that no thread posters claim to be effective. Restrictions on imported firearms that don't apply to domestic firearms, initiated by the 1968 Gun Control Act and extended under two administrations in the 1990s, specifically fall into this category. Such laws harshly penalize gun collectors and enthusiasts, while not impacting gun-misuse one iota.

Only police would be buying 43 guns in 26 hours. There simply isn't a market for volumes of guns at prices sufficiently high to make worthwhile the exercise.

Quote:

The number of guns Tanksley had access to stunned veteran law enforcement officers. Some believe it is one of the larger gun-running cases in recent history in Chicago. A task force including Chicago police officers, Illinois State Police troopers and ATF agents unraveled the scheme.

Kids buys a lot of guns from a private dealer at a gun show, sells them to a gang and profits.

One prison inmate claims his he and his fellow gang members used to buy guns while under the age of 18 at gun shows, from a variety of sellers. The term 'private dealer' was not used; such a thing is illegal since the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It might be more believable that gun-control advocates only want effective laws when those same gun-control advocates start to be in favor of getting rid of laws that clearly aren't effective.

Observation: while all of the participants in this thread don't and might not ever agree what constitutes 'effective gun control', there are some currently-existing gun control laws that no thread posters claim to be effective. Restrictions on imported firearms that don't apply to domestic firearms, initiated by the 1968 Gun Control Act and extended under two administrations in the 1990s, specifically fall into this category. Such laws harshly penalize gun collectors and enthusiasts, while not impacting gun-misuse one iota.

The AWB is another one of those things, once you can actually explain to someone what the legislation does and how there's no functional difference between "assault weapons" and the semi-automatic firearms that would remain legal.

I think that magazine capacity restrictions are misguided for a variety of reasons, but at least that's a real functional thing. Unlike laws that say you can have a pistol grip or an adjustable stock, but not both

The focus on such inconsequential things is also what convinces gun-rights supporters that gun-control advocates aren't dealing in good faith. They're either willfully ignorant of the subject matter they wish to regulate, or they're lying.

I frequently take new people out to the range for orientation/safety/deprogramming. This seems to annoy a lot of the super "right-wing" people out there who get pissed off at me for "Teaching the enemy how to shoot."

Most of the RKBA people on ars are quite sane. This may not be indicative of the community as a whole.

Personally, I get a kick out of this theory that's been aired in various places, including NPR, that the rise in "military style assault weapons" is due to a conspiracy by the weapons manufactures to sell more arms via push marketing since fewer households own weapons.

Your TV went from wood to black plastic over the last 50 years.Your car's trim went from wood to black plastic.Your hand tools went from wood to plastic.Your kitchen knives went from wood to black plastic (well, a lot of them, at least).

Any number of things, in the same period as the AR-15 took over the gun market, went from wood to black plastic. But no, it has to be a conspiracy by gun makers to push military weapons on a market that otherwise wouldn't want them. It couldn't be a natural market shift due to materials technology like every other market.